BOO BIRDS
Re: Enemy Central’s Cat’s
Paws:
The booing at the Academy Awards came from the nobodies, the
jerks, the blue-collar wanks whom Michael Moore pretends (along
with other gold-encrusted members of Hollywood’s anti-solidarity
movement like Susan Sarandon) to be out there fighting for. His
claim — that he has a connection with the “real” people — is, of
course, quite true. He is as much a part of the hoi polloi as ever
o’er-topped 18 stone, as common as a frog in the rain, as plain as
a rat in a garbage dump — you get the picture. But he hates them.
Detests them. Fears them. Freud will tell us why.
Anyway, the stagehands, the riff-raff in the balconies, that’s
who booed Mr. Moore. The other millionaires in the orchestra just
sat there wishing they could really cheer, but it might mean not
getting that ten mil they’re hoping to pull out of the pockets of
their fans for their next film. So they stoically put up with the
booing because they were going to some really great parties in just
a little bit and they could all plot Bush’s overthrow there in the
privacy of their mansions while their nameless, faceless servants
served them delicacies and French Champagne and Saddam killed
another couple of hundred citizens of his own country for not
having a picture of Himself hanging on the wall.
— Ned
Wynn
AIR ON THE SIDE CAUTION
Re: George Neumayr’s Pundit
or Saint? and James Bowman’s Too
Late for Hollywood:
I have just read your matched set of articles on the rantings of
the Hollywood Left (Hollywood Left — is there any other kind of
Hollywood?). I am significantly torn in my opinion of whether their
opinions ought to be aired more or less.
Unfortunately, the Moore, Sheen, Fonda, Sarandon, et al faction
make my blood boil. However, their opinions and rantings are so
outrageous that I really am tempted to say that their every
utterance should receive “front page” treatment in all media. The
theory being that, the more the public sees their rantings, the
more disgusting they will seem and the less effective and
believable they will be. That, however, implies that the American
citizens are logical, reasonable individuals both capable and
willing to make informed judgments. I am not sure what portion of
my fellow countrymen fail that description.
The other side of my self-argument is that there is a really
significant subset of our population whom you simply can not
underestimate. They made Oprah and Martha Stewart hugely wealthy
women. They have allowed Alec Baldwin to keep his citizenship after
he promised to leave the country. They truly see the Dixie Chicks
as deep thinkers. These folks anchor their lives and beliefs on the
expressed thoughts of the latest “hot” commodity in the
entertainment, athletic, and/or media world. My only hope of
salvation is that these gullible citizens largely make up the 50%
or more of Americans that do not vote in elections. But then again,
they elected Bill Clinton and still adore him and bitterly hate
George Bush.
I shall continue this argument with myself. Right now I must get
an aspirin as the whole debate makes my head hurt.
— Ken Shreve
New Hampshire
MARK MY WORDS
Re: James Bowman’s Too
Late for Hollywood:
Twain is not responsible for all old American wit —
Lincoln could be pretty good too; though I believe he
attributed the saying to a Silvan Engle (perhaps an old friend,
teacher or acquaintance from his younger days).
— unsigned
CARGO CLASS
Re: George Neumayr’s Pundit
or Saint?
George Neumayr missed something in his otherwise excellent piece
on Michael Moore; Moore claims that two stewardesses complained
that they only made $30 (for not working) and that “no one speaks
for them”. Well, I don’t know of a single airline whose flight
attendant’s are not unionized. So, their union cut them that deal
and it’s not like the airlines are rolling in cash and
sticking it to their stews. Every one of the big airlines is in
big trouble and a couple are not going to make
it.
— Tom Halleck
Longwood, FL
CAN SHE BE BELIEVED?
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Get
a MoveOn:
The posting on the MoveOn folks reminded of an experience I had
the other week.
That Monday evening I went to the National Press Club with some
friends to toast St. Paddy’s Day. (The club has very reasonably
priced Guinness.)
We were joined by a young lady from the BBC’s Washington bureau.
She was vehemently anti-war; a peacenik of the
no-war-is-ever-justified-no-matter-what-the-circumstances school of
thought. She argued politely but firmly against any military action
in Iraq for nearly an hour. Nothing any of the more hawkish fellows
at my table said could change her mind.
At the end of our little forum, she thanked us. She said she had
never actually been in a serious debate with people who weren’t
anti-war and found the experience fascinating.
“Now I know how you guys think,” she said.
— Sean Higgins
A PATSY ON THE BACK
The question I came away with after reading George Neumayr’s
3/27/03 Embedded
Patsies article is why “some critics” do not also consider
journalists in Baghdad to be are not also considered to be
“patsies.” They are under the constant care and protection of
handlers from the Ministry of Information and are forced to leave
Iraq if the Ministry does not like the coverage the reporter
provides. While being interviewed by Charlie Rose 3/27/03 New
York Times reporter John Burns discussed his handler, their
relationship and the fact that John Burns relies upon him for his
safety. Why isn’t John Burns a patsy?
— Robert Metzler
College Park, MD
Because he’s the best reporter in Baghdad.—
Ed.
BROWN OUT
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Clark
Tanks:
I was so pleased to read your column with the remarks about W.
Clark, as this is what I nightly used to watch: an expert who is
sitting on a chair at CNN criticizing the way the war is going. He
has no knowledge of the plans made to win the war, but still there
he and Aaron Brown (who at one time was giving viewers his take on
how the war should be fought; he had the grace to say at the end of
his uninformed criticism that he may not know enough, but did that
stop him?) The negativity of his and Mr. Clark’s regarding the war
are depressing and so biased that I quit watching them and now go
to the Internet to find the real facts. I am glad to hear that he
has lost any credibility with the his party of choice because he is
not aware Americans do not like armchair generals thinking they
know better than the men who have spent months planning the war and
are doing a great job in difficult circumstances. These men who
Americans know are doing the work, not sitting on a chair showing
their liberal bias to the world.
— Carole Graham
I am so tired of all the retired military analysts. Just once, I
want a interviewer/pundit to sweetly ask: “Sir, tell us, exactly
how many years ago did you retire?” Their military credentials are
stale if they retired before 1997 — weapon technology changes
quickly these days — and a great deal of their criticism stems
from envy of the guys running the show today.
— Judy Beumler
Louisville, KY
THE GIRL FROM EVERGREEN STATE
Re: George Neumayr’s Self-Inflicted
Tragedy
I am incredulous that Rachel Corrie’s school, Evergreen State
College, with no grades, majors, or academic departments, is
supported by the taxpayers of Washington state. The next time state
governors start whining about how they need either an increase in
taxes or a federal handout, or both, to meet expenses, they should
be told that such institutions as Evergreen State are good places
to begin cutting expenditures.
— Tom Ladd
Manchuria, China
Rachel was probably hoping, desperately, to stop the Israeli
bulldozer from the inhumane action of demolishing yet another
Palestinian home, thinking that once the driver sees her standing
in the way he would stop. Eyewitnesses say the
clash between demonstrators and the soldiers/driver lasted for
almost two hours before the incident. They say the driver clearly
saw Rachel, wearing a fluorescent jacket (see pictures at links
here and
here,below)
waving her hands, climbing a pile of dirt to the same eye-level of
the driver, while others screamed at the driver with bullhorns.
He almost definitely saw Rachel, but at best, hoped to scare her
and also didn’t care if she got injured or killed in the process,
noting that little punishment, if any, is inflicted on Israeli
soldiers when they kill Palestinians or supporters of Palestinian
rights. (Although of course killing Palestinians is preferable to
killing non-Palestinians, since the media almost never notices when
the former are killed, saving Israel and its propaganda machine the
minor headache that accompanied Rachel’s death.)…
People admired the heroism of the Chinese student who confronted
a tank 14 years ago in China’s Tiananmen Square, (At least the
Chinese tank driver, unlike the Israeli bulldozer driver, had some
conscience), but now see stupidity, irresponsibility, radicalism or
“hippie-ness” in Rachel’s actions, blaming her for a
“self-inflicted” death. Palestinians and their supporters are
repeatedly asked to follow nonviolence in resisting the occupation.
But when they die confronting their oppressor’s mighty machine
nonviolently with their bodies, they are ignored, or, when they are
rarely noticed (especially when they are non-Palestinians) they are
relegated to realm of nuts.
The idea of a human shield might be a bad tactic, as some had
mentioned, but also a desperate one by a conscientious person who
is trying everything in his/her power to stop oppression. As such
Rachel should be admired and honored, not ridiculed or
dismissed….
— Sami Deeb
South Kingstown, RI
FRENCH RAP
Raoul and Jackie, by their article, “The
French, The French,” demonstrate that they don’t know the
History. They talk, they talk again and again, but they are saying
nothing. The level of the article is below the bollocks…it’s
rubbish!
A few corrections: France did not invent the anti-Semitism
during Dreyfus affair: think of Russia, Poland, Germany, etc.
Napoleon was French, as Corsica joined France before Napoleon was
general…
— Dany Duquesne
France
